Wisconsin Supreme Court Rejects Attempt by Conservative Activist to Obtain Guardianship Records

Tuesday, January 21st, 2025 -- 1:01 PM

(AP) The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Friday rejected an attempt by a conservative activist to obtain guardianship records in an effort to find ineligible voters, but the case could return.

The court did not rule on the merits of the case, instead saying in its 5-2 decision that a lower appeals court did not follow proper procedure when it issued a ruling saying the records should be released.

The case tested the line between protecting personal privacy rights and ensuring that ineligible people can’t vote. Former travel agent Ron Heuer and a group he leads, the Wisconsin Voter Alliance, allege that the number of ineligible voters doesn’t match the count on Wisconsin’s voter registration list.

Heuer asked the state Supreme Court to rule that counties must release records filed when a judge determines that someone isn’t competent to vote so that those names can be compared to the voter registration list.

The justices said the District II appeals court, based in Waukesha, was wrong to overturn a Walworth County Circuit Court ruling denying access to the records.

In a nearly identical lawsuit, the District IV appeals court, based in Madison, had denied access to the records saying they were not subject to disclosure under the state public records law.

Justice Janet Protasiewicz, writing for the majority, said that the District II appeals court could have sent the case to the Supreme Court, explaining why the other appeals court ruling was incorrect.

If it follows the proper procedure for doing that, the case could end up right back before the Supreme Court again. In the meantime, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the appeals court for further action.

All four liberal justices were joined by conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn in the majority. He said the different branches of the appeals court must be unified in their actions.

Chief Justice Annette Ziegler and Justice Rebecca Bradley, both conservatives, dissented, saying the court “leaves unresolved issues of great importance to voters, election officials, and people from whom courts have removed the right to vote due to incompetency.”

Sam Hall, the attorney for Walworth County, praised the ruling. “We all agree that election integrity is fundamental and our citizens must have confidence in our elective process, while also respecting the dignity of those individuals subject to guardianship orders,” he said.

A court has the power to remove the right to vote from a person under a guardianship order if the person is determined to be unable to understand “the objective of the election process.”

Feel free to contact us with questions and/or comments.